Bugatti 100P Rebuilt: The Plane That Could've Turned the Battle of Britain 3

[drawoh]

This is an interesting pieces on Slashdot, although it and the links are wildly inaccurate about a lot of the stuff.

Bugatti 100P Rebuilt: The Plane That Could've Turned the Battle of Britain.

--
JHG

 

[ScottyUK]

That link seems to reference itself. Try this one instead.

Interesting. Of course, it couldn't possibly sound as good as anything with a Merlin engine.

 

[TheTick]

What's wrong with this picture?

A group of airplane enthusiasts have rebuilt the Bugatti 100P, an advanced fighter jet from 1940

 

[JohnRBaker]

Of course the guy who wrote the headline for the 'International Business Times' article apparently had no idea what those two black things were on the front of the plane, otherwise he would have never referred to it as a "Jet Fighter" ;-)

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[btrueblood]

500 mph from less than 1000 hp...not likely. Sure looks good, though.

 

[MikeHalloran]

It's pretty, in a Star Wars kind of way, which is itself surprising.

It appears the propellers and engines are independent, sharing nothing except the gearbox oil supply, which is clever, but also introduces a single point of failure.

I don't see how they'll get enough cooling air through the ele-rudder leading edges to cool even two bike engines, no matter where the radiators are. I'm assuming that's where cooling air goes in; I have no idea where it comes out.

It's kind of confusing; it's hard to tell from the pictures whether you're looking at the restored original, the reproduction, or a model, at least one of which clearly exists.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[IRstuff]

Given that this plane had never been flown, claiming that it could have turned the Battle of Britain seems to be extremely hyperbolic, and tends to decrement any credibility one might exert on the rest of the story.

Air superiority is not solely dictated by raw horsepower or airspeed. During Vietnam, US planes were faster than the clunky MiGs the VC had, but the US planes were getting slaughtered because their tactics did not match up with the VC's. Not until the US began to re-train pilots to dogfight did the US start to win its air battles.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[JohnRBaker]

IRstuff, I think your MIG versus US fighter analogy was with respect to the Korean War, not Vietnam. I mean, I don't recall hearing much about American fighter pilots going head-to-head with 'Vietcong' fighter pilots.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[SomptingGuy]

I'm still thinking through how a zero drag cooling system might work.

- Steve

 

[drawoh]

IRstuff, I think your MIG versus US fighter analogy was with respect to the Korean War, not Vietnam. I mean, I don't recall hearing much about American fighter pilots going head-to-head with 'Vietcong' fighter pilots.

Claiming that the Vietnamese "slaughtered" American pilots is an exaggeration. At one point, the kill ratios were as low as 2:1, way down from the claimed 17:1 in Korea. 1950s jet fighters were built on the assumption that dogfights were a thing of the past, and then they got into dogfights. Note the lovely bubble canopies that came out on all their stuff in the 1970s.

--
JHG

 

[IRstuff]

Re: VC They did, hence the creation of the Navy's Top Gun program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Strike_Fighter_Tactics_Instructor_program

http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/San-Diego-Magazine/October-2009/Top-Gun-40-Years-of-Higher-Learning/

The US supposedly lost around 1000 aircraft prior to the creation of the United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program (Top Gun). Per the "Ault" Report:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a955142.pdf

Training recommendation 12 on page 37, the Navy created the Top Gun program to train pilots in the lost art of dogfighting. Note that this section is only one of many sections on the overall state of Navy fighter plane design, maintenance, operation, testing, and training.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[KENAT]

While slaughtered may be putting it a little strong IRstuff is definitely referencing the correct conflict though the aircraft were North Vietnamese not Viet Cong per se which may explain why you'd never read about Viet Cong aircraft in your extensive studies John (pilots may have been Chinese or even Russian according to some sources). Of course (if I recall correctly) there are now people that claim that the kill ratio in Korea was exaggerated so that it's not an apples to apples comparison between the 2 conflicts but who truely knows.

As to the aircraft, was this the one that was planned to use a hybrid jet & IC or am I thinking of the Caproni Campini N.1? If not then why does the article talk even mention Jet Fighter? Alternatively were the props to get it up to a speed/altitude where it would switch to some kind of Ramjet?

As to the article well, where to start. How an aircraft whose prototype wasn't even flying by September 1939 was going to be in operational service in large enough numbers by Summer 1940 to make a difference, given Italy's limited industrial base etc. is but one issue.

Embedding the radiator or other air intakes into a flight surface was not unusual during WWII - Mosquito definitely did it as did the Vought Corsair - both in the wing roots though.

As to the pointlessness of rewriting the battle of Britain how about throwing in some

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.9/37

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.5/34?

- or maybe just divert a chunk of the Fairey Battle production effort/manning to Spitfires & Hurricanes, and some Beaufort production effort to Beaufighters for the year or two prior to the battle?;-)

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[JohnRBaker]

Note that while the aircraft's designer was Italian, he was living in France when war broke out and from the article it appears that he had no dealing with either the Italian or German airforces. In fact, it sounded as if he went our of this way to make sure that the Germans never learned of his work or the fact that a partially completed prototype even existed.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[IRstuff]

my sloppy, VC just seems shorter and more recognizable compared to NVAF

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[drawoh]

I'm still thinking through how a zero drag cooling system might work.

The Supermarine racing seaplanes used the wing surfaces as radiators. This was rejected by the RAF for fighter planes on the grounds that any hits on the wings would knock out the radiators.

There was a lot of clever radiator design during WWII. The P-51 Mustang's radiators were sort of a ramjet. The air was heated, then expanded through a nozzle in the rear. The net drag was around zero. Note how the Rolls Royce Merlin and the Allison V1710 were around 27[ ]litres displacement. Successful WWII radials were large. The Pratt and Witney Double Wasp (R2800) was around 25[ ]litres.

--
JHG

 

[SomptingGuy]

I get it now. No additional drag. I thought someone had found a way to get convective heat transfer with no flow.

- Steve

 

[drawoh]

Oops! Typo.

The Pratt and Witney Double Wasp was around 45[ ]litres.

--
JHG

 

[btrueblood]

Steve,

"I'm still thinking through how a zero drag cooling system might work. "

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Effect

The P51 and some Spitfire Marks actually could see a net thrust at some operating speeds/altitudes, not just a diminishment of drag.

 

[Debaser]

@ Kenat
"As to the pointlessness of rewriting the battle of Britain how about throwing in some

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.9/37

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.5/34?

- or maybe just divert a chunk of the Fairey Battle production effort/manning to Spitfires & Hurricanes, and some Beaufort production effort to Beaufighters for the year or two prior to the battle"

First rule of rewriting the Battle of Britain seems to be to give Germany every advantage possible (e.g. full on jet aircraft production in 1938), and the UK every disadvantage (Sir Frank Whittle - who he?).

 

[GregLocock]

I think there is an awful lot of extrapolation from one beautiful looking civilian design to a fighter. What were its flying characteristics like? After 10 weeks could you take off and land it in a crosswind?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?